Throughout his campaign, President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged to end Russia’s war against Ukraine within 24 hours. While this ambitious timeline has since been extended—his point person on Ukraine is now tasked with delivering a deal within 100 days—Trump wasted no time after his inauguration to intensify his public push for peace. On Wednesday, the new US president escalated the pressure by threatening tariffs and sanctions if Moscow refuses to cooperate.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s response was indirect. The day after Trump’s inauguration and his remarks about Putin “destroying Russia” by prolonging the war, Putin held an hour-and-a-half phone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Referring to Xi as a “dear friend,” Putin emphasized that Russia and China were strengthening their relationship “based on friendship, mutual trust, and support” despite external pressures. 

This conversation came on the heels of the Russian-Iranian treaty signed just days before the inauguration. Although it fell short of establishing a full-fledged military alliance, the agreement was clearly intended to demonstrate Russia’s ability to resist American policies, including measures proposed to the new administration and aimed at driving a wedge between Moscow and its non-Western allies, Beijing in particular.

From Domestic Concerns to Ukraine

Trump’s sudden focus on resolving the Russo-Ukrainian war warrants closer examination, as it was far from certain he would prioritize this issue. Before his inauguration, his attention was largely directed at US neighbors like Canada and Mexico, alongside bold statements about reclaiming the Panama Canal or acquiring Greenland. Notably, Ukraine and Russia did not feature in his inaugural address.

Many in Trump’s circle, including his vice president, advocated for a swift end to the war, prioritizing domestic concerns over prolonged military involvement abroad. However, in recent weeks, sentiment appears to have shifted. Officials who argued that an immediate disengagement would project US weakness ultimately prevailed. According to high-ranking European officials cited by the Financial Times, the incoming administration was particularly cautious about drawing comparisons to Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan—an outcome the Trump team was determined to avoid in Ukraine. 

Almost immediately after taking office, Trump’s rhetoric on the war sharpened considerably. Reaffirming his intention to meet with Putin face to face, Trump stated, “Zelensky wants to make a deal. I don’t know if Putin does.” In a rare criticism of Putin, Trump added, “He’s not doing so well. I mean, he’s grinding it out… it’s not making him look very good. I think he would be better off ending that war.”

In a Wednesday post on Truth Social, he reiterated his affection for the Russian people and his positive relationship with Putin, framing his push for a deal as an act of goodwill: “I’m not looking to hurt Russia. I love the Russian people... All of that being said, I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War!” Trump did not hesitate to include in his post threats of new tariffs, taxes, and sanctions if a deal is not reached soon. While he insists the war “never would have started” under his watch, his campaign to broker peace reflects both his ambition to secure a legacy-defining win and his growing frustration with the Kremlin’s uncooperative stance.

Openings and Challenges in Pursuing Peace

One could argue that the current moment is ripe for negotiations, at least for a ceasefire. Recent reports highlight Putin’s growing frustration with the struggles of Russia’s non-military sectors, which are grappling with labor shortages, high interest rates, and a dangerous debt burden. According to a source cited by Reuters, Putin believes that key war objectives—such as establishing a land bridge to Crimea and weakening Ukraine’s military—have already been achieved. Meanwhile, Russia’s military has been weakened too. General Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, has noted the lack of potential for a significant breakthrough on the front lines in Ukraine. Putin has repeatedly said, including on the day of the new US president’s inauguration, that he remains open to dialogue about Ukraine.

Moscow’s response to Trump’s peacemaking overtures has remained reserved. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that there have been no concrete proposals from the US, only unofficial “speculative statements.” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, responsible for US relations and arms control, acknowledged the existence of a window of opportunity but stressed its narrow scope. “In contrast to the hopelessness that defined every aspect of the previous White House chief, there is a window of opportunity today, although it is a small one,” Ryabkov said on Wednesday during a speech at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies in Moscow.

Russian officials from the foreign policy community, speaking to this writer on condition of anonymity, confirmed that no substantive contacts had been made with the incoming administration. They expressed surprise at Trump’s highly public push for negotiations before any preliminary consultations had taken place. “He’s looking to declare a quick win, and his approach is familiar: pressure,” one interlocutor remarked. “He wants to back his opponent into a corner, leaving them no choice but to respond.” However, they noted that Moscow is prepared for this strategy and hopes that Trump will soon lose interest and switch to something else.

Persistent Pressure on Vulnerable Fronts

The very fact that Putin emphasizes his reliance on a narrow group of allies, who themselves are far from aligning with him on all issues, points to potential avenues for policies that could pressure him into negotiations. Iran (already significantly weakened by Israel’s actions) and China (currently facing substantial economic challenges) are less dependable than they might appear. Chinese banks have been cautious in handling transactions with Russia because of concerns about potential penalties from Western sanctions. This suggests that a gradual, persistent approach across a broad front—rather than a sudden push—will be key to encouraging meaningful engagement from Moscow.

Longer term measures are more likely to work than quick attention-grabbing gestures. Russia’s economy has split into two diverging segments—military and civilian—each operating under vastly different dynamics. The military sector thrives on government prioritization, benefiting from subsidies, low-interest loans, and wage increases. Meanwhile, the civilian economy faces inflation, labor shortages, and stagnating incomes.

Policies that exacerbate these economic imbalances—such as targeted sanctions on key industrial inputs, measures to limit access to critical technologies, and incentives for skilled labor migration from Russia—could deepen the strain on Moscow’s civilian sector. Over time, the growing disparity between these two economic realities could erode domestic support for the war and force the Kremlin to reconsider its priorities. 

The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.